barmar, on 2012-May-03, 00:56, said:
I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", they say "incorrect explanation". If an explanation is incomplete or ambiguous, you could rule that it's inherently incorrect.
There's only going to be damage if the ambiguity results in the opponent misinterpreting the explanation. But it doesn't matter whether the intent was X and the opponent thought it was Y, or vice versa.
gordontd, on 2012-May-03, 02:00, said:
Actually the term appears in the Laws on several occasions, though not in the definitions.
Four times, by my count, in Laws 20 and 21, not including Table of Contents, Index, and chapter headings.
campboy, on 2012-May-02, 15:01, said:
In order to rule misinformation there needs to be misinformation. We can rule MI if we think the explanation clearly meant one thing rather than the other. Obviously this can't be the case in both directions simultaneously.
It seems to me that the fact that a player was misled by an explanation is prima facie evidence that the explanation was misleading ("Misleading explanation" is the phrase used in Law 75). "Misinformation", according to my dictionary, means "false or inaccurate information". If a player gives a true and accurate description of his partnership understanding, and his opponent is nonetheless misled, what then? I suppose 21A applies.